Trust flags

[mosprognoz]

If that service is actually legit, which i highly doubt in the first place-- it's totally useless.
There's no way 15 DT members are actually going to sell their integrity for 1.7$ per vote. And to think they hacked 15 dt members is laughable.
Either their votes are from useless accounts, or the service is fake. it won't matter nor impact the system either way.

It is not legit. But for newbies who do not understand how the trust system works (It's quite complicated) that may cause some confusion. All  that scammy services are coming mainly from Russian threads here on bitcointalk. Bumping service, Accounts trading, Youbit buy walls, E.t.c...

[1714913538]

1714913538

[1714913538]

1714913538

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~

If that service is actually legit, which i highly doubt in the first place-- it's totally useless.
There's no way 15 DT members are actually going to sell their integrity for 1.7$ per vote. And to think they hacked 15 dt members is laughable.

Either their votes are from useless accounts, or the service is fake. it won't matter nor impact the system either way.

It did not say any DT, it said "from senior members and above"

I saw a scammy service in telegram, offering opposition for flags. $25 for 15 oppose notes from senior members and above. I just wanted to mention that scammers can use that service.

So it's assumable these are not necessarily need to come from DTs. They can create accounts and can oppose the flags which are indeed useless if they do so LOL

[mosprognoz]

So it's assumable these are not necessarily need to come from DTs. They can create accounts and can oppose the flags which are indeed useless if they do so LOL

Yes, but as I mentioned "For newbies who do not understand how the trust system works (It's quite complicated) that may cause some confusion" For example: 5 support votes from DT members and 30 from high ranked accounts not DT members. That will look very strange for newbies and even for other members who are not familiar with the system and who does not know what is DT. There are a lot of such profiles here.

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~

Yes, but as I mentioned  "for newbies who do not understand how the trust system works (It's quite complicated) that may cause some confusion"

Very true and this is exactly what I meant when I said opportunity.

It's not only newbies, we will find a lot of regular members who are not regular in meta, reputation board - they have less chances to understand how the flag voting system works.

[suchmoon]

Yes, but as I mentioned "For newbies who do not understand how the trust system works (It's quite complicated) that may cause some confusion" For example: 5 support votes from DT members and 30 from high ranked accounts not DT members. That will look very strange for newbies and even for other members who are not familiar with the system and who does not know what is DT. There are a lot of such profiles here.

The flag would still be active and visible on threads, which is its main purpose. The support/opposition lists are visible only on the trust details page, which is not much different from how untrusted feedback shows too. If someone gets confused by that and doesn't even bother to read the referenced thread - tough shit. Not sure what else we can do to "enforce" due diligence. The info is there one click away. Although I would prefer to have a short comment on the flag itself like we have with trust feedback.

[Hueristic]

Anyone can support/oppose flags.
However, only the trusted votes count.
And trusted votes are defined by your trust settings.
If you didn't touch your trustlist (which you definitely should do), DT1 and DT2 votes count only (big bold font).

I saw a scammy service in telegram, offering opposition for flags. $25 for 15 oppose notes from senior members and above. I just wanted to mention that scammers can use that service.

So 25 bucks to tag and ban 15 Senior and above accounts?
Sounds like a good deal to me.

[bob123]

The flag would still be active and visible on threads, which is its main purpose.

I don't think so.

~snip~
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it.
[...]
A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
[...]
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
~snip~

The flag would be only visible to the people who explicitly included the (worthless) senior account into their trustlist.

And i doubt that the accounts used for such a service (if it exists at all) are in anyones trustlist (except maybe the one from their alts).

So 25 bucks to tag and ban 15 Senior and above accounts?
Sounds like a good deal to me.

No one gets a tag (see above).
And no one gets a ban. Bans are not related to this at all.

[suchmoon]

The flag would still be active and visible on threads, which is its main purpose.

I don't think so.

I was thinking about 5 DTs supporting a flag and 30 random nobodies opposing it. At least that's how I interpreted mosprognoz's post.

[bob123]

I was thinking about 5 DTs supporting a flag and 30 random nobodies opposing it. At least that's how I interpreted mosprognoz's post.

Oh.. that makes sense now.

I somehow didn't get the context to that specific post. I don't know why i kept thinking you are referring to the original post bringing up this service.

Whatsoever.. this service is either a scam, or worthless. I hope no one falls for that.
Anyone falling for such stupid things is just encouraging others to create more similar scammy 'services'.

[mosprognoz]

This service is either a scam, or worthless.

Yes, it is a scam service. But if the system works like that, then anyone's support or opposition means nothing, except of DT members opinion. Disabling the support or oppose button for regular users will be a good idea, since it it worthless for anyone except DT members. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

[bob123]

Yes, it is a scam service. But if the system works like that, then anyone's support or opposition means nothing, except of DT members opinion. Disabling the support or oppose button for regular users will be a good idea, since it it worthless for anyone except DT members. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

It is not worthless.
No one said that only DT votes count.

Votes count from anyone who is in your trust list. If you didn't touch it.. then yes only DT1 / DT2 count.
However, if you include other people, their vote counts too (for you).


It is stated in the OP:

~snip~
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
~snip~

[mosprognoz]

If you didn't touch it.. then yes only DT1 / DT2 count.

90 % or even more of this forum users do not know, how to add someone to their trust list.

[suchmoon]

If you didn't touch it.. then yes only DT1 / DT2 count.

90 % or even more of this forum users do not know, how to add someone to their trust list.

Possibly true, but that doesn't mean we should take the option away from the other 10%. If anything we need to encourage more people to use custom lists.

[DooMAD]

90 % or evenv more of this forum users do not know, how to add someone to their trust list.

Possibly true, but that doesn't mean we should take the option away from the other 10%. If anything we need to encourage more people to use custom lists.

On which note, I'll crosslink this thread about adding buttons on users' sidebars to make that easier.

[dkbit98]

Nice explanation.
Can reports to moderator statistics be shown to public also, optionally?

[Steamtyme]

Not sure if this came up and I missed it but I've been thinking about what to do in the case of an Alt. If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well? If so, how would you like the reference thread presented

1- Same thread as the main account, with an edit/notation in the OP about their alts linking to the posts linking the accounts
2- New thread encompassing the scam, and the connection between alts

Also wouldn't mind peoples opinions on my previous post as well. Might have been buried in some other discussions

I've been thinking on this flag a bit the last couple weeks. The wording "I believe that anyone dealing with [---] is at a high risk of losing money" seem to be a roadblock for Flag 1 warnings; and could be replaced by something less universal. This currently gets read as absolutely everyone would need to be at risk of being scammed walking into this situation. Where something like "Users dealing with [---] may be at a high risk of losing money" is less encompassing. It gives the desired effect of warning naive users without having to tick the box of an experienced user falling for the same trap.
The situation that got me thinking about this has been resolved and was clarified shortly after a flag had been created but the questions lingered with me.
On a similar line of thought regarding warning flags (Type 1). If we believe that in the future someone will redeem themselves, but you currently view them as a risk. Should you create a flag, or limit yourself to using the feedback system?

[suchmoon]

Not sure if this came up and I missed it but I've been thinking about what to do in the case of an Alt. If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well? If so, how would you like the reference thread presented

Here's how I did it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153872.msg51453017#msg51453017

I'm quite certain that's sufficiently obvious for anyone looking at the flag.

Also wouldn't mind peoples opinions on my previous post as well. Might have been buried in some other discussions

"Anyone" is not the same as "everyone". For example "everyone please give me $10" and "anyone please give me $10".

It does sound ambiguous in that context though, I agree with that. It should be clarified.

[LoyceV]

If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well?

Yes:

Can I also create a scammer flag for alt-accounts of the contract violator? Example: BetKing.io violated a contract, but BetKing Support, dean nolan and PocketRocketsCasino are his alt-accounts.

Yes, one of the victims can.

If so, how would you like the reference thread presented

I listed the alts under "Accounts involved" in the reference thread.

I used the BBCode from my Trust list viewer and Trust Flag viewer to easily highlight the current Trust score and Flag support.

Accounts involved
BetKing.io (Trust: !!!:  +2 / =2 / -8) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
BetKing Support (Trust: !!!:  +0 / =0 / -7) (1 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
PocketRocketsCasino (Trust: !!!:  +2 / =1 / -7) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
dean nolan (Trust: !!!:  +0 / =0 / -6) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Flags against these accounts

41 Active. LoyceV flagged BetKing.io (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, dbshck, suchmoon, franckuestein, LFC_Bitcoin, RHavar, SyGambler, bones261, LoyceV, Avirunes, nutildah, actmyname, Lutpin, marlboroza, Lafu, Last of the V8s, Hhampuz, bob123, micgoossens, o_e_l_e_o, iasenko, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, Hueristic, Quickseller, Joel_Jantsen, killyou72, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, wwzsocki, cissrawk, JollyGood, Royse777, teeGUMES, iwantapony, JSRAW, N0sferatu, PrimeNumber7, ChemicalSpillage, okdevin. Opposed by nobody.

42 Active. LoyceV flagged BetKing Support (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, dbshck, suchmoon, franckuestein, LFC_Bitcoin, bones261, LoyceV, Avirunes, actmyname, marlboroza, Lafu, Last of the V8s, Hhampuz, bob123, micgoossens, o_e_l_e_o, iasenko, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, Hueristic, Quickseller, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, cissrawk, JollyGood, Royse777, teeGUMES, JSRAW, N0sferatu, PrimeNumber7. Opposed by nobody.

43 Active. LoyceV flagged PocketRocketsCasino (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, dbshck, suchmoon, franckuestein, LFC_Bitcoin, bones261, LoyceV, Avirunes, actmyname, Lafu, subSTRATA, Last of the V8s, Hhampuz, bob123, o_e_l_e_o, iasenko, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, BayAreaCoins, Hueristic, Quickseller, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, cissrawk, JollyGood, Royse777, teeGUMES, N0sferatu, PrimeNumber7. Opposed by nobody.

44 Active. LoyceV flagged dean nolan (type 3, see why). Supported by malevolent, dbshck, suchmoon, franckuestein, LFC_Bitcoin, bones261, LoyceV, Avirunes, nutildah, actmyname, Lutpin, marlboroza, Lafu, Last of the V8s, Hhampuz, bob123, micgoossens, o_e_l_e_o, iasenko, coinlocket$, asche, DireWolfM14, morvillz7z, Hueristic, Quickseller, TheUltraElite, IconFirm, cissrawk, JollyGood, Royse777, teeGUMES, N0sferatu, PrimeNumber7. Opposed by nobody.

(source: loyce.club 2019-07-20 Sat 03.39h)

[Timelord2067]

Not sure if this came up and I missed it but I've been thinking about what to do in the case of an Alt. If a user gets flagged with a scam flag, and they have suspected alts. Can the alts have a flag opened against them as well? If so, how would you like the reference thread presented

Suspected alts NO.

ACTUAL alts yes...

Were I to flags such alts, the one that scammed me would get the Red Flag and the actual proven alts would get either an implied contract flag or more likely I would give them a Cautionary Flag.

[Hueristic]

So 25 bucks to tag and ban 15 Senior and above accounts?
Sounds like a good deal to me.

No one gets a tag (see above).
And no one gets a ban. Bans are not related to this at all.

No, poor choice of words, in this context I meant "identify" with this use of the tag adjective (or is it a verb:I hate english .